On the wall in my office I have hanging a poster which I got in Israel a few years ago, which details the geneology of Christ from Adam as derived from scripture. No problem with reconciling anything actually. Are these "numerous attempts" one's you have made yourself? It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone who's invested the time to make all the connections, it just takes a little bit of effort.
Matthew's geneology, prepared as it was to include details relevant to a Hebrew reading audience, includes more than Luke, the Physician's, does (who's writing appeals to a more academic audience, where Matthew's level of detail on this topic is not Luke's emphasis.). Nothing more difficult to comprehend than that. No "conflicts" either --all that's lacking is adequate research of the matter on your part.
The "tree" detailing Christ's earthly lineage that I have is similar to one you may have seen that traces the "Roots of Rock 'n' Roll." If one's rendering of this "Roots" chart omits (as it does), the specific origins in Africa or the Caribbean of many of the drum cadences and syncopations found in rock, is that chart "inaccurate" or "different", or, more simply, accurate to the degree it is relevant to the reader?
A scholar might claim that one or the other is not the actual geneology but representative of something else -- but there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view (Sola Scriptura, n'est-ce pas?).
If THAT is what passes "scholarship," I'd question where such a budding talent received their traning.
Such is the same for the two creation accounts in Genesis -- both of which have already been posted on this thread. Some have claimed that these are simply two separate views of the same events; however, the orders of creation are markedly different...However, no amount of squirming will obviate the simple fact that there are two different stories.
The Genesis 1-2:2 detailed account of origins is just that. The continuing narrative in what we read thereafter is a summary, not intended as a re-statement of the immediately preceding, very detailed, event-by-event account. I am sure that you have summarized high points in letters and academic papers of your own writing without feeling the need to repeat yourself unnecessarily with such detail. This is particularly so, if the writer's intent is to advance the narrative's progress, as it does in Genesis, to the next leg of the account, describing God's planting of the Garden of Eden and man's relationship to it, etc.
There is no literary or factual conflict. The scriptures as we read them are divided by chapters and verses which were not the convention of the manuscripts themselves. This often leads to contextual confusion such as you are experiencing. The "summary" is to be read in the context of the details, not apart from the context of the details.
The details are specific ("Genesis 1: day 3: God did this..."). The "Summary" is general ("God made the world, He made man, He made fish, He made trees, etc.). I need no specific order in a summary, and I am not inaccurate nor in conflict in either case.
The summary is included and has literary merit, to transition the focus of the reader from an overwhelming origins account to a smaller continuing account, only noting creation generally (without the redundancy of the detail) for the purpose of focusing it with much smaller nuggets of narrative which continue. The overwhelming magnitude of the act of creation, which is a story which can and should be appreciated as one which stands alone, does so in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 it is an abbreviated summary, not a full blown recapitulation of the detail.
I've known some Christians to claim that the two accounts of the origins of man actually indicate that Adam had two wives, with Eve being the second (this is the foundation of the "Lilith" myth).
The Lilith myth has nothing to do with Christianity as it has nothing to do with scripture and more to do with pagan parallels of scripture, possibly of Babylonian origin. As with the "scholarship" observation I made above, such people evidently choose to allow themselves to be confused with extra-bilical non-sense.
I'm sure you are going to blow off this posting with a blythe "you simply don't know what you are talking about" quip, without actually addressing the points above. However, I'm quite used to such treatment at the hands of creationists, so rest assured I shall not be offended.
I trust that you haven't felt "blown-off" by the commentary, since that is not my intent. However, those that are honest with themselves, and pursue their scholarly research in a spirit of intellectual honesty and a genuine desire to learn and to know, researching the answers to questions about origins becomes a facinating one.
It is a matter of the premises that one begins with that formulates their approach to such a debate. Most persons in search of contradictions in scripture (that scholars far more accomplished than either you or I cannot seem to credibly find), do so because to find such a conflict then means that you can pick and choose what you want to believe about God based on what you want to choose to believe about scripture or apart from scripture. Some, as in you note in the Lilith observations even want to slap a "Christian" label on things that have no basis in Chrisitianity. Some will call upon me to defend from a "Christian" perspective things that are not Christian at all. Comment on this deserves about as much serious attention as one should pay to "clutter." Confusing the clutter with Christianity is more common than it should be, unfortunately, and those that do evidence inherently weak scholarship.
The premise I start with is that God and his scriptures are inerant, and it is I who will do well to become more familiar with them and to read them plainly. You may want to try this approach yourself
On the wall in my office I have hanging a poster which I got in Israel a few years ago, which details the geneology of Christ from Adam as derived from scripture. No problem with reconciling anything actually. Are these "numerous attempts" one's you have made yourself? It doesn't seem to be a problem for anyone who's invested the time to make all the connections, it just takes a little bit of effort.
Matthew's geneology, prepared as it was to include details relevant to a Hebrew reading audience, includes more than Luke, the Physician's, does (who's writing appeals to a more academic audience, where Matthew's level of detail on this topic is not Luke's emphasis.). Nothing more difficult to comprehend than that. No "conflicts" either --all that's lacking is adequate research of the matter on your part.
The "tree" detailing Christ's earthly lineage that I have is similar to one you may have seen that traces the "Roots of Rock 'n' Roll." If one's rendering of this "Roots" chart omits (as it does), the specific origins in Africa or the Caribbean of many of the drum cadences and syncopations found in rock, is that chart "inaccurate" or "different", or, more simply, accurate to the degree it is relevant to the reader?
A scholar might claim that one or the other is not the actual geneology but representative of something else -- but there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view (Sola Scriptura, n'est-ce pas?).
If THAT is what passes "scholarship," I'd question where such a budding talent received their traning.
Such is the same for the two creation accounts in Genesis -- both of which have already been posted on this thread. Some have claimed that these are simply two separate views of the same events; however, the orders of creation are markedly different...However, no amount of squirming will obviate the simple fact that there are two different stories.
The Genesis 1-2:2 detailed account of origins is just that. The continuing narrative in what we read thereafter is a summary, not intended as a re-statement of the immediately preceding, very detailed, event-by-event account. I am sure that you have summarized high points in letters and academic papers of your own writing without feeling the need to repeat yourself unnecessarily with such detail. This is particularly so, if the writer's intent is to advance the narrative's progress, as it does in Genesis, to the next leg of the account, describing God's planting of the Garden of Eden and man's relationship to it, etc.
There is no literary or factual conflict. The scriptures as we read them are divided by chapters and verses which were not the convention of the manuscripts themselves. This often leads to contextual confusion such as you are experiencing. The "summary" is to be read in the context of the details, not apart from the context of the details.
The details are specific ("Genesis 1: day 3: God did this..."). The "Summary" is general ("God made the world, He made man, He made fish, He made trees, etc.). I need no specific order in a summary, and I am not inaccurate nor in conflict in either case.
The summary is included and has literary merit, to transition the focus of the reader from an overwhelming origins account to a smaller continuing account, only noting creation generally (without the redundancy of the detail) for the purpose of focusing it with much smaller nuggets of narrative which continue. The overwhelming magnitude of the act of creation, which is a story which can and should be appreciated as one which stands alone, does so in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 it is an abbreviated summary, not a full blown recapitulation of the detail.
I've known some Christians to claim that the two accounts of the origins of man actually indicate that Adam had two wives, with Eve being the second (this is the foundation of the "Lilith" myth).
The Lilith myth has nothing to do with Christianity as it has nothing to do with scripture and more to do with pagan parallels of scripture, possibly of Babylonian origin. As with the "scholarship" observation I made above, such people evidently choose to allow themselves to be confused with extra-bilical non-sense.
I'm sure you are going to blow off this posting with a blythe "you simply don't know what you are talking about" quip, without actually addressing the points above. However, I'm quite used to such treatment at the hands of creationists, so rest assured I shall not be offended.
I trust that you haven't felt "blown-off" by the commentary, since that is not my intent. However, those that are honest with themselves, and pursue their scholarly research in a spirit of intellectual honesty and a genuine desire to learn and to know, researching the answers to questions about origins becomes a facinating one.
It is a matter of the premises that one begins with that formulates their approach to such a debate. Most persons in search of contradictions in scripture (that scholars far more accomplished than either you or I cannot seem to credibly find), do so because to find such a conflict then means that you can pick and choose what you want to believe about God based on what you want to choose to believe about scripture or apart from scripture. Some, as in you note in the Lilith observations even want to slap a "Christian" label on things that have no basis in Chrisitianity. Some will call upon me to defend from a "Christian" perspective things that are not Christian at all. Comment on this deserves about as much serious attention as one should pay to "clutter." Confusing the clutter with Christianity is more common than it should be, unfortunately, and those that do evidence inherently weak scholarship.
The premise I start with is that God and his scriptures are inerant, and it is I who will do well to become more familiar with them and to read them plainly. You may want to try this approach yourself